Skip to main content
Glama
flaviofilipe

kali-security-bridge

by flaviofilipe

brute_force_hydra

Automate credential brute-force testing against SSH, FTP, HTTP, RDP, Telnet, and more with Hydra in isolated Kali environments. Validates weak authentication using custom user/password wordlists for authorized security assessments.

Instructions

Testa credenciais fracas em serviços de autenticação usando Hydra. Use quando Nmap identificar SSH, FTP, HTTP-Auth, RDP ou Telnet.

ATENÇÃO: pode bloquear contas ou gerar alertas. Use só em ambientes autorizados.

Serviços válidos: ssh, ftp, http-get, http-post-form, rdp, telnet, smtp, pop3, imap, smb

Para http-post-form, configure: http_form_path: caminho do formulário. Ex: "/wp-login.php", "/login" http_form_data: campos do formulário com ^USER^ e ^PASS^. Ex: "log=^USER^&pwd=^PASS^&wp-submit=Log+In" http_form_fail: string presente na resposta em caso de falha. Ex: "ERROR", "Invalid", "incorrect"

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
portYesPorta do serviço.
targetYesIP ou hostname do alvo.
serviceYesServiço a testar. Ex: "ssh", "ftp", "http-post-form"
passlistNoWordlist de senhas no container./usr/share/wordlists/rockyou.txt
userlistNoWordlist de usuários no container./usr/share/wordlists/unix_users.txt
http_form_dataNoCampos POST com ^USER^ e ^PASS^ (só http-post-form).log=^USER^&pwd=^PASS^&wp-submit=Log+In
http_form_failNoString de falha na resposta (só http-post-form).ERROR
http_form_pathNoCaminho do formulário (só http-post-form)./wp-login.php

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses the destructive/impactful behavior: 'ATENÇÃO: pode bloquear contas ou gerar alertas. Use só em ambientes autorizados.' This goes beyond what annotations provide (no annotations exist), clearly indicating potential account lockouts and the need for authorization, which is critical for security testing.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded with purpose and usage. It uses bullet-like formatting for service list and parameters, making it easy to scan. Some redundancy (repeats service list in description and schema) but overall efficient and necessary context.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema, the description is complete: it explains when to use, what services are supported, how to configure complex params with examples, and the risks. It fully compensates for missing annotations and provides actionable guidance for all major aspects.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema coverage is 100%, so the schema provides descriptions for all parameters. However, the description adds critical semantics for http-post-form parameters (http_form_path, http_form_data, http_form_fail) with detailed examples, going beyond the schema's brief definitions. No extra semantics for other params, but they are self-explanatory.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to test weak credentials on authentication services using Hydra, with a specific verb ('test') and resource ('authentication services'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by listing target services (SSH, FTP, HTTP-Auth, etc.) and referencing Nmap for identification, which is unique among the sibling tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly provides when to use the tool: 'Use quando Nmap identificar SSH, FTP, HTTP-Auth, RDP ou Telnet.' It also provides clear alternatives by listing valid services and warns about risks, effectively guiding the agent on appropriate usage and prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/flaviofilipe/kali-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server